Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Sixpence on October 10, 2002, 04:39:21 AM
-
Don't get me wrong, I think it's great. But a T-34 and a sherman could have really helped in the events. A russian front with T-34's&m16's against panzers&ostwinds would be interesting.And I realize you can sub the t34 with the panzer and give the german side the tiger, but I needed something to whine about:D
BTW, haven't seen ground vehicles in an event yet.Is it because there is not a map to use, or has it been tried b4 and doesn't work?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Don't get me wrong, I think it's great. But a T-34 and a sherman could have really helped in the events. A russian front with T-34's&m16's against panzers&ostwinds would be interesting.And I realize you can sub the t34 with the panzer and give the german side the tiger, but I needed something to whine about:D
if i remember correctly, the t-34 and the sherman are coming... i think with the release of the tiger...
-
We had an event that was vehicle based - Afrika Corps - set in the desert in 1942. It ran in late 2000 if I remember correctly. I enjoyed it.
The problem then was that hispanos could destroy a tank in one pass, so we had spitfires killing panzers with their guns. We also had tiffies substituting Beaufighters, and this was before the Tiffie's FM was reviewed - which gave it a slower roll rate. They were pretty tough, as you can imagine.
Anyway, some people still maintain the gv damage modelling is porked. I don't know whether it is, but I believe we would need at least the T-34 and Sherman to really get a ground war rolling.
Imagine Kursk - just need G-series Stuka with gondola cannons, Pe-2, LaGG, MiG 3 and He-111 and we'd have a great time. :)
-
Downding, try this. Take an M16, find a Panzer (problem is getting within 50 cal range) then riddle him, won't take long to take out his tower and tracks from 1000 yards or so. I did it last night, couldn't kill him but disabled everything except the hull MG (which he eventually got me with as I started driving circles around him to teas him).
But it is still porked, 50 cal or Hispano plane can easily take out panzers. This is also the reason, I, and many others think that the Tiger might not be usefull at all as all that is needed right now is a P51 to come strafe it with 50 cal.
As for the question "Why The Tiger?" It is that HTC want something to spend Veichle perks on I think, and the Tiger is a good choice for this. Panther would be cool too.
-
I can't be arsed, wilbus. I only play Aces High for the scenarios really, and TOD, CAP etc. The MA bores me stupid. So, I'll take your word for it. :)
But the any issues with the gv model are more than made up for with the 20mm depleted uranium gattling cannon mounted on the panzer. :) I always take them out with bombs these days.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
BTW, haven't seen ground vehicles in an event yet.Is it because there is not a map to use, or has it been tried b4 and doesn't work?
The Sicily Scenario in April had LTV's AND GV's used in the event. The Allies had to LAND Trops on the island and capture a base. Then each frame afterwords both sides could use GV's to capture or recapture bases.
There were some good ground fighting going on.
-
As mentioned in a million other posts, the damage modeling needs serious help, just the other night, I had 6 o'clk position on a tank 200 yards away, hit him 6 times in the turret and the rear gas tank area, his engine dead, he turned and fired one shot hit the frontal armour of my tank and killing me instantly.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Downding, try this. Take an M16, find a Panzer (problem is getting within 50 cal range) then riddle him, won't take long to take out his tower and tracks from 1000 yards or so. I did it last night, couldn't kill him but disabled everything except the hull MG (which he eventually got me with as I started driving circles around him to teas him)
Funny that. I have two GV kills this tour; one is a panzer. He was busy shooting at one of our panzers, so I was able to sneak up on his blind side and take out his track and engine as I weant around back. Must have damaged the turret as well. On the next pass I got stopped about five meters from his right side, stopped my engine, and proceeded to unload all the rest of my ammo. His hull gun couldn't move far enough to hit me.
After I ran out of bullets I restarted my engine, drove around behind him, and headed home.
Got to wonder what that sounded like on his FE, though. About 1000 rounds of fifty cal hitting him at point blank range. I was close enough to see the hit sprites for all four guns show up seperatley. Wish I'd recorded that... :(
-
Semi related, I was watching the History channel's Thunderbolts, and one of the pilots interviewed mentioned they'd bounce their fiftys under German tanks. Took em out quick, since there wasn't much armor on the bottom.
Since I actually survived pouring 1000 rounds of .50 into the side of a tank at point blank range I suspect ricochets aren't modeled, which is a shame. Be fun to take out GVs that way rather than by direct fire.
-
Originally posted by Puck
Semi related, I was watching the History channel's Thunderbolts, and one of the pilots interviewed mentioned they'd bounce their fiftys under German tanks. Took em out quick, since there wasn't much armor on the bottom.
Since I actually survived pouring 1000 rounds of .50 into the side of a tank at point blank range I suspect ricochets aren't modeled, which is a shame. Be fun to take out GVs that way rather than by direct fire.
What uber material did Germans make roads out of that would not let a bullet penetrate (to allow a richocette)?
Then what softer material did they make tanks out of that would then not allow richocette and instead allow penetration (even with a now lower energy and deformed projectile)?
Doesn't make much sense even on the surface (haha) of it - does it?
-
There are many stories about P47's taking out tanks by bounzing the 50 cals, I believe non of them. If the roads were so good that they actually bounced off them, the bullets would get deformed and flat, thus they wouldn't penetrate the armor although very thin. 50 cal's won't penetrate much armor, they definatly won't take out a Panzer 4 or larger.
-
None weapon owners above? (Shrugs) Take a hunting rifle, fire it at an angle on any dirt road, it richochets.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
None weapon owners above? (Shrugs) Take a hunting rifle, fire it at an angle on any dirt road, it richochets.
Then answer second question first is only a set-up for first
-
Originally posted by Turbot
What uber material did Germans make roads out of that would not let a bullet penetrate (to allow a richocette)?
Let's see. Uber materials that would deflect bullets.
Water comes to mind in a hurry. Then again, when you get into orbital mechanics you start bouncing very solid objects off air, too.
Actually the projectile doesn't deform much at all. Bounce a ping-pong ball off a bowling ball and see what happens. If the angle of incidence is low enough it will just skip off the ground (dirt, concrete, just about any surface). As the angle of incidence approches 90 degrees you get less of an elastic collision and more energy is actually transmitted into the ground, thereby deforming the bullet and reducing energy.
This is pretty basic physics.
-
Oh, and the second question. These are 50 cal AP rounds to begin with, and the armor on the bottom of a tank tends to be just about thick enough to stop a mosquito from stabbing the tank commander in the butt.
There was a hatch under there up until the M1A1, and it wasn't real thick. I've burned holes through 3/8" cold rolled steel with a 30 cal, I suspect the penetration of a 50 AP would be slightly higher.
AFIK those stories survive the purely physical sanity check.
-
Originally posted by Puck
I've burned holes through 3/8" cold rolled steel with a 30 cal, I suspect the penetration of a 50 AP would be slightly higher.
Hehe.
-
The tales of killing tanks with richochets can probebly mostly be attributed to the massive over claiming of kills on tanks by the USAAF. Or the rampant miss identifiying of ground vehicles by the USAAF. IE either they didnt kill it at all..or they were not attacking a tank.
The richochet tactic was documented successfull with 57mm anti tank guns vs Panthers in the ardennes though.
But think about it. IF its true that tanks are vulnerable to 50 cal in that way..the infantry would have been the first to know. they had lots of 50s and and I have never read an account of them claiming to kill a tank in this way..
Ive shot lots of 50....
I love the 50..
But it cant kill a tiger.
-
Infantry is firing their 50s from a slightly lower altitude. The angle of incedence is measured in single digits. Good bounce, but there's no way to hit the bottom of a tank like that.
I have no idea if the stories are accurate; the claims of the P47 drivers interviewed survives the basic sanity test, but I have no other information to indicate any of those bounce attacks were successful.
Would be cool to know the "truth"
-
i don't think the 50 cal was a normal Infantry weapon* in WW2, gun and ammo too heavy to drag around, i think it was only mounted on vehicles. and when you refer to "tanks" remember the panzer IV med tank was not a tiger ( panzer VI) or a panther (panzer V), they are heavy tanks.
44MAG
* by Infantry weapon i mean there were no 50 cal MG squads in the Infantry, they used 30 cal MG's
-
From EatAPuss: sets drag...waits
Heheheheh.
-
i don't think the 50 cal was a normal Infantry weapon* in WW2, gun and ammo too heavy to drag around, i think it was only mounted on vehicles.
Of course it was only mounted on vehicles; that's why the Army went to all the expense of having the M3 tripod and the M1 AA mount (which converted the M3 tripod into an elevated mount suitable for use against low-flying aircraft) manufactured.
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2hb-s.jpg)
Table of Organization and Equipment (BW)
US Infantry Division 1943-45
HQ Company
3 57mm ATG
3 .50-cal HMG
MP Platoon
Ordinance Light Maintenance Company
Quartermaster Company
51 2.5 ton truck
Signal Company
Medical Battalion
3 Infantry Regiments
216 Heavy Rifle RL squads
126 MMG (90 .30-cal heavy and 36 .30-cal light)
105 HMG .50-cal*
54 81mm Mortar
81 60mm Mortar
54 57mm AT Guns [division total 57]
99 2.5 ton truck
* - 35 per regiment; 9 per battalion or 54 if only battalion HMGs counted
Division Artillery
54 105mm Howitzers
12 155mm Howitzers
139 2.5 ton truck (count for TOAW = 66, one per gun)
Cav Recon Troop (Mechanized)
13 M8 Armored Cars
5 Halftracks
9 Jeep (there were more, but at least 9 were armed with MG)
3 Heavy Rifle or SMG squads [division total 246]
13 .30-cal light MG
3 .50-cal HMG
9 60mm Mortars [division total 90]
Engineer Battalion
27 Engineer Squad
18 .30-cal light MG [division total 157 MMG]
12 .50-cal HMG [division total 120]
22 2.5 ton truck [division total 238]
Self Propelled Anti-Tank Battalion
14 M10 Wolverines
30 M18 Hellcats
Self Propelled Artillery Battalion
18 M7 HMC
Towed Anti-Tank Battalion
9 37mm AT Guns
20 57mm AT Guns
9 90mm AT Guns
Anti-Aircraft Battalion
Cavalry Company (Recon)
17 M4 Shermans
Sources:
"World War II Order of Battle" by Shelby Stanton,
"Cross Channel Attack", Gordon Harrison,
"Organization of the Army Ground Forces" in the "US Army in World War II" series.
-
Originally posted by Puck
Semi related, I was watching the History channel's Thunderbolts, and one of the pilots interviewed mentioned they'd bounce their fiftys under German tanks. Took em out quick, since there wasn't much armor on the bottom.
Since I actually survived pouring 1000 rounds of .50 into the side of a tank at point blank range I suspect ricochets aren't modeled, which is a shame. Be fun to take out GVs that way rather than by direct fire.
the problem with this story which has been brought up loads of times is it doesnt mention which tank or 'how' this worked. The most probable is that the panzers often leaked oil and fuel and so 1000's of incindaries etc could well have set fire to them and thus take them out.There are many studies of the damaged tanks done by the allies and it was a very low number that was taken out by air attacks.If i remember right it was an extremly low percentage.Many were simply abandoned by terrified crews rather than actually penetrated.
Seems to me as a pilot if i shot under tanks and it caught fire or the crews abandoned the tanks I would think it was a kill.This is just another pilot story and doesnt really add up when you read all about armour penetration vs the guns power to do so.
However, the later panzers were built with a lot poorer quality of steel (history channel prog) and often had very different thicknesses/strength compared to older and better quality tanks.
who knows ? maybe it did work but in AH we dont have this sort of thing modeled so its pretty irrelavent.best we can use is data on max armour penetration over velocity/armour penetating power of the guns.
If i remember correctly some guns do not have AP shells modeled in AH so to ask for this to be added based on one account by a pilot on tv seems a bit much to base a model on.All you will do it have people complain once again that the 50cal is over modeled for penetration. Take a look at this chart for lethality on guns like the 50 cal. If 20mm's had trouble penetrating armour how does the 50 cal do so good?
-
oops heres pic:
-
Originally posted by Puck
Funny that. I have two GV kills this tour; one is a panzer. He was busy shooting at one of our panzers, so I was able to sneak up on his blind side and take out his track and engine as I weant around back. Must have damaged the turret as well. On the next pass I got stopped about five meters from his right side, stopped my engine, and proceeded to unload all the rest of my ammo. His hull gun couldn't move far enough to hit me.
After I ran out of bullets I restarted my engine, drove around behind him, and headed home.
Got to wonder what that sounded like on his FE, though. About 1000 rounds of fifty cal hitting him at point blank range. I was close enough to see the hit sprites for all four guns show up seperatley. Wish I'd recorded that... :(
talking AH here not RL but it looks like in AH the 50's will damage some parts of the PNZ IV but not all of it no matter how many rounds hit , he damaged the eng , track , and main gun but could not "kill" the tank. so it depends where and with what you hit it with.
44MAG
-
WWII .50 cal AP/I rounds penetration was ~20mm from 100meters.
Only way it could penetrate any part of PzIV is straight from the top or from under the tank.
I don't think U.S fighterpilots ever pushed their luck by diving straight down to 100m (about 300ft) to get their guns inside the efective range.
Well maybe they did but they sure couldn't come back to tell about it.
-
For the 50 cal to bounce of a road it would have to be at very low angle. IE, as Rip said a shooter on the ground could bounce a rifle round of a dirt road. But what angle does a P47 come in on? Thats the first problem. At angles over 30 degrees I'd guess the round would simply penetrate the road.
So then you have angles of less than 30 degrees. Say you came in at 20 degrees elevation. On 10mm armour that makes the effective armour thickness what ... effectivelt 30mm (forgotten all my trig), and something like 60mm at 10 degrees of elevation (the equivlent of an aircraft firing from 3000 feet distance and 500 feet elevation).
IE, to acheive an effective firing angle against the armour thickness, you have to be at a relatively steep angle. To acheive an effective richochet you have to firing at a relatively shallow angle. The two negate each other.
Sorry but I call BS :)
-
Originally posted by hazed-
oops heres pic:
I'm telling Mr. Shaw you stole his table!
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
IE, to acheive an effective firing angle against the armour thickness, you have to be at a relatively steep angle. To acheive an effective richochet you have to firing at a relatively shallow angle. The two negate each other.
Sorry but I call BS :)
Precisely. This resurfaces every so often when someone is out opf original troll ideas.
-
In response to the ricochet kills of Panther tanks, I have heard of this and it has been verified true (not by 50cal or any MG though). Here's the catch though... the earlier Panthers had what is referred to as a "shot trap" due to its curved gun mantlet. What was happening was the Allied tank or anti-tank gun would aim for the bottom half of the Panther's gun mantlet, the shell would ricochet off the mantlet downward, then it would pierce the roof armour over the driver/radio operator. On the later Panthers a "chin" was added to the bottom of the mantlet to prevent the likelyhood of shells bouncing down through the hull roof.
-
Yes. but in the Ardenns the farthest advancing panthers of kamp gruppe Pieper were killed by anti tank guns aiming at the cobbles under the tanks... two panthers were killed that way at that one engagment.
-
>So then you have angles of less than 30 degrees. Say you came
>in at 20 degrees elevation. On 10mm armour that makes the
>effective armour thickness what ... effectivelt 30mm (forgotten
>all my trig), and something like 60mm at 10 degrees of elevation
>(the equivlent of an aircraft firing from 3000 feet distance and
>500 feet elevation).
You musta been out of your Vulcan mind, jk. :) Richochets did happen in real life. You can see it in the old fims, the flashes and etc... of the projectiles arcing upwards water and land.
I hope they dont decide to impliment this. It would ruin alot of things woudlnt it.